CIT v Kantilal Nathuchand Sami 63 ITR 318 (SC) 4 Panther Industrial Products Ltd. CIT v. Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad

71 ITR 296Supreme Court of India1969#25537 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v Kantilal Nathuchand Sami 63 ITR 318 (SC) 4 Panther Industrial Products Ltd. CIT v. Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad

Puli Ashok Reddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narsimha Chary & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanishri Puli Ashok Reddy, Nellore. Pan Acspp8800H …..Appellant. Vs. Pr. Commission Of Income-Tax, Tirupati. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri A.V. Raghuram, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision-Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tirupati [“Ld. Pcit” In Short] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“‘The Act” In Short] For Assessment-Year 2016-17. 2 2. The Registry Has Informed That That The Present Appeal Was Required To Be Filed By 11.05.2021 But The Same Was Actually Filed On 16.12.2021, After A Delay Of 219 Days. The Ld. Ar Prayed That The Delay Has Occurred Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Ld. Ar Further Placed Reliance On The Order Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 Read With Misc. Applications, By Which Suo Motu Extension Of The Limitation-Period For Filing Of Appeals W.E.F. 15.03.2020 Under All Laws Has Been Granted & Hence There Is No Delay In Fact. We Confronted The Ld. Dr Who Agreed To The Submission Of Ld. Ar. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Proceeded With For Hearing, There Being No Delay.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 7Section 72

…business – Is allowable – Tribunal while allowing set off of non-speculative loss against profits of speculative business having relied on the decision of Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, calls for no interference – CIT Vs. Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad (1969) 71 ITR 296 (SC) and A.R. Mahadevia Vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 308 (Bom) relied on. In this case, the ITAT allowed set off of brought forward and current business loss against the profits of speculation business. Against ITAT’s order, the revenue filed appeal to the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court agreed with the decision of ITAT and dismissed departmen…

Panther Industrial Products Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1080/MUM/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 70Section 73Section 79

…re trading has to be considered in computing the gross total income. Reliance is placed on the ratio of the Supreme Court in the following cases– CIT v Kantilal Nathuchand Sami 63 ITR 318 (SC) 4 Panther Industrial Products Ltd. CIT v Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad 71 ITR 296 (SC) In view of the above, Explanation to sec. 73 is not applicable to the facts of the case of our above named clients.” 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee by observing as under:– “2.3: The income side of the P&L A/c of the assessee company shows income from shares…

Heetu Chemicals & Alkalies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1012/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Nanivadekar, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, DR

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 73Section 73(4)

…year of assessment u/s 28 of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to set off speculative losses against profits from other business activities of the same year. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gauri Dutta Bhagwan Dass and Co. (1969) 71 ITR 296 (SC); CIT vs. Kanodia & Co. (JP) (1970) 77 ITR 515 (SC); CIT vs. Gupta Bros. (P) Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 443 (SC). Thus u/s 73, losses in speculation business cannot be set off against any income under the head ‘business or profession’ nor u/s 71 against income under any other head, but it can be set off only against profits, if any, of another specul…